Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Lundy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. The creator of the article apparently doesn't realize that there's a difference between an assertion of meeting WP:BIO and actually meeting WP:BIO - in other words, a claim that a subject is notable means a CSD#A7 is not allowed. But this is not CSD, and we actually investigate the notability instead of taking the article's word for it.

And when I looked, the ELs provided are not working, not about Lundy, not verifiable, or not reliable sources. Examples: a blog, which is the definition of a non-reliable source, plus two articles about entirely different people (one of whom is his co-host DJ, and Lundy's sole mention is "his co-host, Brent Lundy"). The band itself is possibly of borderline notability, though I don't see records released by a major label in the ELs provided. If this is the sum total of the coverage of the band, I don't hold out hope if it comes to AFD. Lundy himself, however, clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC. Krakatoa Katie  07:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Brent Lundy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.  ttonyb (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Criterion A7 does not apply: The article makes a credible assertion of importance and significance, sufficient to pass A7--Dr. Musique 14:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMusique (talk • contribs)

Also, in reviewing WP:Music guidelines it is clear that Brent Lundy meets guidelines under Criteria for musicians in that the musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria, in which this article meets the following: This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries
 * 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
 * 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
 * 4.Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.(Cravin Melon & Hootie & the Blowfish)
 * 10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)iPhone MixMeIn Application--Dr. Musique 15:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMusique (talk • contribs)
 * Comment – Let's address each point:
 * This is not a CSD tag, so your comment about the A7 does not apply.
 * I am sorry to say, the individual has not been the subject of "non-trivial" coverage. A few mentions in a couple of articles does not add up to "non-trivial" coverage.
 * There is not evidence of "non-trivial" coverage concerning his tours in the article.
 * There is nothing in the article to indicate the iPhone App is notable. There are thousands of apps that have music that are not notable.   ttonyb  (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Comment – Let's address your opinion and interpretation of what is notable or "nontrivial":


 * Comment - With all due respect, your track record for recommendations on speedy deletions is mixed. I think your bullet points are open to interpretation and I would be interested to see what others have to say. For example, one of the admins has already noted that the article --  "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance". posted by ϢereSpielChequers 07:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) in the post to your talk wall.  I am assuming that s/he disagrees with your interpretation as bulleted above or the article would have been speedy deleted which s/he declined and then you afd'd it. All of the articles are from legitimate newspapers (The State, The Augusta Chronicle)or online versions of print media.  If that is not nontrivial, I don't know what is. I would like to see what others have to say on the article. Also, since this is new to me and I will be writing more bios, it would be helpful if the wiki community could provide suggestions for enhancement versus just criticism.  Thanks so much.--Docmusique1 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMusique (talk • contribs) --65.23.113.146 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I am not sure what you mean my track record is mixed. If you are referring to a couple of reversed CSD nominations out of over 60K edits, I would question your interpretation of factual data - it appears you have not looked at the data deep enough to make an observation as such.  More to the point, since this is not a CSD nomination your comment has little bearing on this AfD.  Just because an article makes claims of notability does not mean it will not be deleted via a AfD.  In this case the claims all seem to hinge on if the article is supported by "non-trivial" coverage.


 * If we review the articles, this is this what we find: is an article about Augusta Players benefit concert which features a couple of brief quotes from Lundy.  is an article about the project he was in and only mentions his name as a member.   is again about a project he was in and only mentions his name in passing.  is about someone playing drums on a Lundy project and Lundy is not even closely the subject of the article.  is only a listing of a minor local radio show he hosts.  You seem to want to point out that the "coverage" is from valid sources - in some instances, true, but the source has no bearing on the insignificance of the coverage. BTW - the blogs used to support the article is not valid sources per WP:RS.  Please help me understand how you can mention any of this as "non-trivial" coverage.  Even the combined result it is still very trivial.


 * Since you are new to Wikipedia, I have added a Welcome message to your talk page. It has a number of useful links to help one create their first article.  I suggest you review the links and if you have any specific questions, please let me know on my talk page.   ttonyb  (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First, let me say Thank you. I am certain your job can be difficult in safeguarding the integrity of the many new articles that come along. I do want you to know that I did go through the Wikipedia tutorial and reviewed, not edited, several musican pages of the same stature prior to creating this one.  I am not certain if it is appropriate to post examples, but I have several, that would show that my citations/references seem to be inline--perhaps exceed with the wiki policies.  I am not sure how I am supposed to validate this, since it is up to the community.  I have two other articles I am working on with citations from newspapers and websites, and contrary to how you described them, substantiate the narrative telling of the biography from an independent 3rd party, as does the current article on Brent Lundy.  I guess the question becomes whether or not enough of you all feel it is nontrivial.  I would think given the number of people Mr. Lundy has worked with that already have established and approved wiki articles would be evidence enough of his worth and notability, but perhaps I interpret the guidelines not as conservatively as others. I just want to make sure that his biography is not deleted without full and fair consideration in comparision to others of the same level of prominence (as stated, I can provide examples).  I am in the process of adding additional information about the other notable (according to wiki) artists he has worked with and plan to add that before the 7 days is up-but think the article is substantiated with nontrivial support, as is. Thanks so much for your help and input.  Also, I keep inserting the time stamp, but it doesn't seem to take. Not sure how to address that.  If you have suggestions on how to correct that, that would be wonderful. I will start posting questions to your page as your requested and appreciate your offering to assist with any future help I may need. Thanks again, --Docmusique1 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Docmusique1 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMusique (talk • contribs)


 * Have added Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Brent Lundy as suggested by WikiProject Biography on the main article page's discussion tab --Docmusique1 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not inherited from who he has worked with. Notability is not inherited from who his band has played with. MixMeIn is not notable. Lundy lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (from ttonyb's analysis of existing sources (adding The Daily Gamecock is a University paper) and my own search). duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (changed my mind, see new vote below) - Lundy appeared on MTV Unplugged, this clearly meets WP:Music #10 ("Has performed music for a work of media that is notable"), MTV is viewed by millions of people around the world. I also think he meets #1 ("..the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works"). The discussion if the sources are "non-trivial" or not is of course subjective, but I believe the sources are mostly non-trivial within the context of the topic -- it's not the NY Times, but many notable subjects never make the NY Times, they are covered in more specialized sources relevant to the topic. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – He did not appear on MTV as an individual artist, but rather as a member of a the group The Ultraviolets. The appearance might support an article for the group, but does not meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC for him.  As pointed out, notability is not inherited.   ttonyb  (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC says "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Green Cardamom (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – ...and those bands are?  ttonyb (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Green Cardamom may have been suggesting that clause may be notability by inheritence. Notability can be gained by ones actions and achievements. Being a member of two notable bands is an achievement. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename/Refactor - article should be renamed Ultraviolets (band) (or another agreeable name). Keep existing material mostly, but condensed into a section titled "Brent Lundy", with additional information about other band members. Lead section and templates re-written to focus on band instead of Lundy. Reasoning Lundy is notable (in Wikipedia terms) mainly for his role with the band Ultraviolets. Ultraviolets are clearly notable, they played on MTV, they should have a Wikipedia article before Lundy does. Start there first. As Lundy's solo career grows with his new band Lundy, then he will meet the notability requirements to have his own article. I think we're jumping the gun here having a Brent Lundy article and no article about the Ultraviolets. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep-For the following reasons and things to consider prior to final review:
 * 1.)Meets WPMusician, alone, in that Brent Lundy has become one of the most prominent representatives of the local scene of a city (Columbia, South Carolina; Verifiability has been substantiated with independent, third party citations and links to articles.
 * 2.) This article has met Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, in that the article in question actually documents that the criterion is true, which wiki standards state is more important when looking at people who may not be as well known. Vague claims were NOT made in the article or was Mr. Lundy's importance exaggerated, as citations verify his significant contributions, specifically to the Columbia music scene, spanning over a decade.
 * 3.) Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. I believe, Mr. lundy meets this operational definition for notability in that it is worthy of notice and at least unusual enough to deserve attention. Second to Darius Rucker, opening for Craving Melon, continually being cited as the songwriter of the 90's in Columbia, South Carolina, deserves notice. Also, Mr. Lundy is still doing significant work with many great and well know musicians.  There will be more to add to this article in 2011.
 * 4.) Finally, Mr. Lundy is cited in archived articles in the State, Atlanta Constitution, & The Augusta Chronicle, but I would have to pay to access the articles (you can go to cites and run a search but when you click on article, fee for read pops up). Unfortunately, I do not have the resources at this time to purchase subscriptions to add to the list of already verifiable sources of support for the current article. Docmusique1 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)Verifiability has been NOT been substantiated with independent, third party citations and links to articles. Third party citations showing this are simply not there.
 * 2)This article has NOT met Wikipedia's standards for notability. Notability needs more than just the truth (seeWP:N and WP:V). This article has NOT met Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Large sections are unsourced.
 * 3) How does Lundy "meets this operational definition for notability"? Claim reads like WP:ILIKEIT. Where is Lundy "continually being cited as the songwriter of the 90's", a vauge claim in itself. Lundy does not inherit notability from others. What might be coming in 2011 is a crystall ball so doesn't matter.
 * 4) Evidence of such citations can be provided without forcing users to pay. I notice that you have failed to provide such evidence.
 * ps, have you read WP:COI. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:COI does not apply. I am merely working down a list of articles to add that another colleague of mine and I discussed. I learned about the subject's history through research on gigs played and newspaper articles, and band's myspace page. I am not sure how anything that is written can be viewed as not neutral. I do plan to edit other articles and briefly, already contributed to one, and I have several other articles in the works, but since this was my first and this process became very time consuming, I wanted to wait, to see how this process went. I have learned a lot, but quite frankly, didn't realize the AFD process could be so intense. All good, though. In terms of #1. The Free Times is a local, independent newspaper, as well as The State, and the Augusta Chronicle.  They are written independently. #2. notability appears open to interpretation based on what I have read in wiki and it is a rule of thumb, not policy. One can have any or none of the criteria, but if it is worthy of notice, it can be included in wikipedia. #3. I explained how 3 was met. Almost all of the articles, if read in entirety, identify Mr. Lundy as prominent in Columbia, South Carolina. #4. I have provided 12 citations that substantiate the facts of the subject.  If there are sections that aren't up to par, than I propose deleting those sections or modifying to them versus removing the whole article.  The opening description is evidence enough of his importance and prominence as a representative of Columbia's music scene.Docmusique1 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ultraviolets per GC. I agree, virtually all of this content can go into an article with pretty clear notability, so why waste time about a questionable one? PRESERVE what's important, we get a nice new article, and the material is there if/when the subject clearly achieves notability. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.